From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4751d44ff54a2c2c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-04 10:00:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers in Ada
Date: 4 Aug 2002 12:00:55 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <PG2KS5+doDWm@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3CE3978F.6070704@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net>
 <3D46DC69.7C291297@adaworks.com>
 <5ee5b646.0207301613.5b59616c@posting.google.com>
 <yeceldkpm34.fsf@king.cts.com> <wcc65ywhw3s.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ai8pf9$fip$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <slrnakhqa5.ok.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <aibbr8$4ie$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <slrnakkdbb.ou.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <aie0vt$p6g$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <5ee5b646.0208030424.39703482@posting.google.com>
 <3D4C2805.62563584@adaworks.com>
 <5ee5b646.0208040607.ebb6909@posting.googOrganization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1028479769 31954 192.135.80.34 (4 Aug 2002
 16:49:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 16:49:29 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27670
Date: 2002-08-04T12:00:55-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <5ee5b646.0208040607.ebb6909@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message news:<3D4C2805.62563584@adaworks.com>...

>> Since we often counsel designers to specify their own
>            ^^^^^
> I trust this is a typo for *always*

I would expect no such counsel when:

	1. They are already doing so.
   or
	2. This consideration is vastly outweighed by a body of
	   more important items that deserve their intention.

>> numeric types anyway, this is probably not a hardship, 
>> but it could be troublesome for an experienced I-8051 
>> programmer who expects 16 bit integers.
> 
> I don't understand, is this "experienced I-8051" programmer
> an experienced Ada programmer. If so, he has no business
> using Standard.Integer. If not, and he is writing Ada in
> C style, then perhaps the choice of 32-bit integers will
> help cure this bad practice.

Let's cure _all_ such individuals, by standardizing on 4096 bits
as the size for Standard.Integer :-)